tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4252387356584666129..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Lenski's long-term evolution experiment: the evolution of bacteria that can use citrate as a carbon sourceLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70953671815545220842014-01-09T00:45:40.482-05:002014-01-09T00:45:40.482-05:00Larry,
Could you please comment on Carl Zimmer&#...Larry, <br /><br />Could you please comment on Carl Zimmer's elaboration on this relatively recent <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/12/27/1314561111.abstract" rel="nofollow">paper</a>? Especially in regards to the following statement: <br /><br />"<i>Barrick and his colleagues suspect that the evolution of a new kind of dctA gene allowed the bacteria to keep up a supply of succinate, which they needed on hand in order to feed on citrate. Together, the mutations to citT and dctA turned the mutant microbes into winners.<br /><br />Which leaves the role of all the other mutations shrouded mystery. <b>In the new study, none of the mutations that came before generation 31,500 proved to be vital for being a full-blown citrate feeder. They didn’t lay the groundwork in any essential way. </b>And yet the previous research clearly indicated that things were afoot before generation 31,500.</i>"<br /><br />If the statement in bold is true, then as far as I understand, this means that there actually were no potentiation mutations that are absolutely essential for acquiring the new function. Is my understanding correct, or am I missing something? <br /><br />Here's the full article at Zimmer's blog: <a href="http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/01/06/evolution-hidden-in-plain-sight/" rel="nofollow">Evolution Hidden in Plain Sight</a>unhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02527051725365759129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22913087541364717362013-12-03T22:23:33.427-05:002013-12-03T22:23:33.427-05:00Simon Conway Morris was completely wrong on conver...Simon Conway Morris was completely wrong on convergent evolution. <br /><br />The sole reason he presented that argument was the need to make humans an inevitable outcome of evolution. Otherwise theistic evolution becomes one of these:<br /><br />1) impossible<br />2) equivalent to intelligent design<br />3) incompatible with theology (there are scenarios that sort of work and are compatible with both evolution and theology but they invariably do away with at least one (often more than) of the omni-s in God's description. <br /><br />The problem is, of course, that you can only claim convergent evolution when you see it, and we do not see it everywhere. It is not the case that we see each and every adaptive solution arrived at independently by more than one lineage. Crucially, that includes humans - intelligence only arose once, as far as we can tell, therefore it is a complete fallacy to claim that convergent evolution makes sure human were inevitable. <br /><br />It's actually worse than that when you think about it. Imagine that there were in fact more than one species that evolved intelligence through convergent evolution (note that they need not coexist in the same time, in fact it is quite possible that 100 million years from now there will be no traces of our existence as most likely the period of time in which we will exist on this planet will only be a few tens of thousands of years, of which most have already passed). What are the theological implications of that? Did each of them sin separately? Ddid Jesus come to save each of them separately? Were both of them made in the image of God? And a lot more...Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80126504493747378322013-12-03T22:14:25.962-05:002013-12-03T22:14:25.962-05:00Simon Conway Morris makes the important point. Con...Simon Conway Morris makes the important point. Convergent conclusions in nature means there is limited options at the end. In fact it makes unlikely evolution as a haphazard mutation driven thing ABLE to create like looking or working traits.<br />They must always invoke convergent evolution to explain such common design/conclusions.<br /><br />Interesting experiment.<br />Yet it hints there is problems explaining results of changes. Mutations from mutations and then selection seems to be a messy trail. it seems to be very minor attrition perfectly fine with creationism(S). Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71330978232951730182013-12-03T20:36:52.474-05:002013-12-03T20:36:52.474-05:00That's a really nice overview of the of an imp...That's a really nice overview of the of an important scientific work. I hope that you do more of these, Larry. They are quite helpful. unhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02527051725365759129noreply@blogger.com